The Myth Of The Western Conference Being Superior

[monopoman]

When does the meme every **** year about NY being amazing next year going to stop?

I mean the last 3 years in a row it seems that everyone hops on board the "NY is going to be a top contending team next year!" no matter how bad they look the year prior.

Also a couple of the teams that could have been something in the NBA unfortunately faced some tough injuries that hurt their chances *cough*Portland*cough*.

The Spurs and LA are two extremely well run franchises and I have heard people claim that the Spurs are possibly the best run franchise in all of sports. So obviously there is a reason they have the majority of the championships over the past 13 years.

[russnumber3]

I think Boston or Chicago could have beaten the Thunder. The Pacers would have pushed them to at least 6. The top of the East knows how to ball.
Knicks are going to be good too next year after a full training camp. Much though it pains me to say. They'll take Boston's spot if Boston blows it up.

The great thing is that besides the Celtics we have a mental edge on all of the other top teams in the east right now, where it will take more than just outplaying us, they'll have to get past the mental blocks that tell them they have no chance.

LMFAO... so glad to have stumbled upon this. They probably all would have beat the Spurs then? ahahahaha. The West, 1-8 has been better than the east 1-8 for many years in a row guys.

[LordkeiiN]

I agree the advantage is very overrated. The West has won so many championships b/c they have the two best teams from the past decade. The Spurs and Lakers have won 9 of the last 14 championships. There are very few year in there were the eastern conference team was a pushover. Every year there are a bout 6 or so legitimately good teams in the NBA and they are pretty much split evenly. The West gets a lot of credit for parody but their bottom seeds would get swept by the easts top seeds.

Also I do think the Celtics would have played the thunder well. The Celtics make you play 24 seconds on both sides of the ball and the Thunder are not smart enough to handle that. I also think the Celtics would be better able to handle the Thunder defensively b/c the could contain westbrook and even harden better. The one major problem would be Durant but I think it would have been a very similar series where it was 1-1 after 2 and then came down to who executed down the stretch.

this.

[imchillin]

Bulls would beat the Thunder with a healthy roster

They would not, they don't have enough scoring

[Chosen01]

Like Coolstorybro said the difference between Heat and Celtics/Bulls is that all three are top defensive teams but only the Heat are able to keep up with the best scoring team(statistically) in OKC.

So Bulls and Boston maybe able to contain them but wouldn't be able to outscore them because of their lack of potent offensive options that the Heat had. Although you may say Celtics-Heat series went to 7, I'm positive that if Bosh were healthy then that series could have easily been over in 5.

[micromonkey]

We are also the tougher division. Not bad boys tough but the elite teams play friggin defense all the time unlike the hop, skip and flop west. Watching the finals it was clear OKC has no real positional team defense concept--just a bunch of great athletes who can get caught out of position a lot. Thibs/Spo/Doc would have none of that garbage. But the West Elite would definitely win in a game of horse.

Congrats on the championship BTW----Not that I'm happy about it but I'll let my Heat-hate charge up for next season--I'm full out right now